Key Airbus, Boeing supplier sees recovery in 2022

By Scott Hamilton

Oct. 28, 2020, © Leeham News: A key supplier to Airbus and Boeing believes there will be a “significant upturn” in passenger traffic and aircraft demand in 2022, well before consensus.

Hexcel provides composites and other materials for the Airbus A320 and A350 and Boeing 737 MAX.

And Raytheon Technologies sees passenger traffic returning to pre-COVID levels in 2023, depending on widespread use of vaccines.

Consensus is a return to pre-COVID levels in 2024.

In its 3Q2020 earnings press release Oct. 20, Hexcel’s CEO, Nick Stanage said, “The overall long-term demand for aircraft and our advanced composites technology remains robust, and the potential for a significant upturn in 2022 and beyond looks positive.”

The actions we are taking will ensure that Hexcel emerges from the effects of this pandemic stronger than ever. As we do, our liquidity will have been strengthened, our cost structure will be reset, and we will be well positioned to deliver strong shareholder returns.”

Quizzed on the earnings call, Stanage elaborated:

Several factors

“In general it’s not one thing but from our view people want to travel. People want to get out, go places, visit and as the borders open up as medical advances continue, as vaccines are released people are going to get back out travel. I believe there’s a huge pent-up demand and even on the business side businesses need to get out visit customers visit sites do business. And I believe that’s going to recover again as the epidemic and the understanding and the social distancing and the new processes and procedures gets confidence. So that’s the big thing,” Stanage said.

“Second, if I look at what we’re going through today the destocking, destocking is a one-time effect. Now granted, it’s layered down by program and every production cut takes more destocking but it is one time and once it’s done and you’re right-sized, there is a tremendous upside opportunity once the growth comes back because the supply chain will be very lean.

“If you look at narrowbody demand, A320 order intakes continued so that the backlog is where it was even after nine months of bill rates. We’re hopeful and I believe we’re seeing more and more confidence that the Max will return [soon]. Even though there is a large inventory in that supply chain, we still expect Boeing to ramp up and get their supply chain secured and gradually increase over time.”

Stanage said that widebody recovery probably will be slower than narrowbody. International travel will trail domestic travel.

“Having said that, there’s a significant amount of parked aircraft that will be taken out of service and as that travel comes back the replacement of aircraft are going to be highly composite intensive newer airplanes where we have strong positions. It’s just a question of when that happens toward the end of 2021 or early 2022.”

About 68% of Hexcel’s 2019 revenue came from commercial aviation. Eighty-seven percent of this came from Airbus and the rest from Boeing.

45 Comments on “Key Airbus, Boeing supplier sees recovery in 2022

  1. I’m in the same camp as Stanage: the moment travel restrictions are lifted in a meaningful way, people will fly in droves. Sure, many people will prefer to wait a while, but others will run to the airport.
    That’s the demand side of the equation. The capacity side is a different matter –because of fleet retirements, delivery deferrals, bankruptcies of carriers and (possible) de-commissioning of local airports. But some of that deficit can probably be compensated for by higher load factors.

  2. Regarding Stanage’s reference to vaccines, the man is perhaps a little too optimistic. Reuters had this article this morning:

    “The first generation of vaccines is likely to be imperfect, and we should be prepared that they might not prevent infection but rather reduce symptoms, and, even then, might not work for everyone or for long”

    • Again, we have numerous vaccines moving into Phase 3 trials, after successes reported in the first two trials. We also have a few about to exit Phase 3 and begin the approval process.

      None of the Phase 3 trials have a negative result, they are all demonstrating that they produce an immune response and are safe for use within the population. We don’t have the specific numbers as of yet, but they would not have progressed this far without significant promise.

      Some experts are concerned the public will see a vaccine as a perfect solution, which likely will not be the case, and so are trying to temper that by injecting reality into the discussion.

      But we should not mistake those efforts for inefficacy or lack of benefit for the vaccine. Those experts do not intend their comments to cast doubts or distrust, or discourage vaccine development.

      This is why it’s important to keep things in the broader context of the success of developments thus far. There should be one or more effective vaccines available by the middle of next year at latest, perhaps sooner.

      • Sounds like an adaptation of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.

        • Important not to sow distrust or discord or doubt in the extensive effort of others, when you’ve made no equivalent efforts yourself, and in opposition to the facts.

          Especially for something that has the potential to help so many people, and that has worldwide support. If it fails, it will be on the facts and not on speculative efforts to dismiss it before the facts are established. Right now, the facts point to success.

          • @Rob

            ‘Right now the facts point to success’

            This is not true – not right now: at least it is not true in the US and Europe, where the facts – and the facts are the reality of the infections and illnesses and deaths – point to failure and to a second wave and to multiple lockdowns

            Vaccines look, at this early stage, to be more or less promising, perhaps – even if there are differences of opinion between the pharmas who, quite naturally, are obliged to display confidence in their products, and some many health experts and epidemiologists, as reported here recently

            It is possible that in the future vaccines will be distributed and prove effective – but this is not a fact, it is foreseen and it is likely to happen, yet success is not to be taken for granted

            What is a fact, what is a success, is the very low death rate in SubSaharan Africa (excluding the country of South Africa) – although of course this too can pass, and a ‘second wave’ strike there with a much higher death rate : at the moment they do not need a vaccines, luckily for them

          • @Gerrard White
            It’s “normal” for some people to exhibit denial in matters like this: it’s much more attractive to cling to a fantasy than to look hard reality in the face. In fact, sticking ones head in the sand seems to be a common reaction in times of crisis: remember the US president whose motto during the Great Depression was that “prosperity is just around the corner”.
            For those who prefer objective analysis by experts to subjective fantasy, one has articles like the following (in addition to the one above):

            Incidentally: Sweden also hasn’t had a second wave (as yet).
            Here’s a really neat link that shows the course of *deaths* in each European country.

          • We have multiple vaccines coming up for approval in the near future. That is a fact. You are both advocating for, and speculating about, failure, and have done so consistently here. That is a fact.

            At present there is not evidence to indicate that failure will materialize. But there is considerable evidence to suggest the vaccines will have at least some degree of success. Multiple consecutive trials involving up to 200,000 people around the world, all with positive results thus far.

            So for now, it’s essential to stop the spread of disinformation. Which I will continue to do here at each opportunity. If failure is the result, the facts will tell us that in time, not your speculation or your advocacy of it.

          • @Bryce

            Thanks for these links -these make explicit other recent reports we have shared

            I had not read of the idea of paying people to take the vaccine in the US – indeed that is a country in which everything, and especially healthcare, is monetised

            I was over generalising about Europe – and I have long admired Sweden’s resolve to take a different path and remain determined to stay on this, in spite of a massive amount of media criticism and, I am sure, political pressure

            Indeed the one most obnoxious aspect of the (general) policy in Europe, and the US, is the badly administered inefficient yet heavy handed ‘lockdown’ -nonetheless rolled out with increasing regularity

            It looks like the major European countries are setting themselves up for a very bleak winter

          • @Rob

            ‘Some degree of success’ you hope for in vaccines, so do we all, but some degree is not very cheerleadery

            This some degree is a far cry from ‘follow the science’ and we’ll get through

            I do not think it is possible to advocate for failure, I mean as an intelligible construct in English : however I can say that one has to be realistic about the chances in your country of even the scope and scale of best ‘science’ to contain this virus, given that until now general deployment, in the ‘West’, and especially in the US, has been a miserable failure, compared to the ‘East”, and compared to Africa

            One may wonder why this is so- perhaps it is down to incorrect application of science, perhaps poor health and poorer healthcare, perhaps inefficient administration, maybe lack of trust in your ruling class displayed by the people in your country

            Or perhaps it is due to ‘disinformation’ from malignant outsiders – take your pick

          • @Gerrard White
            I can’t speak for other countries but the policy in NL is simply to turn the “restrictions knob” in small increments so as to keep the healthcare system from saturating, but still allow infection to occur…particularly among the young, on which the virus basically has zero detrimental effect. So, essentially, a similar approach to Sweden.

            The “Plan B” that really needs to occur is to stop the “one size fits all” approach and instead adopt a multi-tiered approach that is more individually tailored to different population groups: in essence, under-40s should be allowed to live with minimal restriction, and over-40s will have to tailor their own protective measures/actions to suit their individual risk…or have it done for them if they live in a care home. This will not only prevent rioting (now occurring in multiple European countries), but is fully in line with the “learn to live with it” approach being advocated by the WHO director who oversaw the SARS crisis in 2003. However, don’t expect change anytime soon: administrators are, for now, still slavishly following the staid approach of a collection of dusty, conservative, sheepish virologists. If those people administered retail stores, we’d never have seen the concept of self-scan checkouts emerge, that’s for sure.

          • @Bryce

            If NL is similar to Sweden then I think they must be on the right track

            This approach is not only consensual, subtle in distinction between vulnerabilities according to health and age, respectful of custom, but also takes a realistic long view of outcome, rather than the short termism shown in other countries – which invariably leads to failed attempts at lockdown or that nasty phrase ‘circuit breaker’ which sounds like the crack of the whip

            It is difficult to underestimate the degree of administrative incompetence and stupidity shown in places like England and Spain – as if determined to provoke the riots you mention

          • Gerrard, the “some degree” was a concession to the fact that we don’t know the results yet. We only know that the vaccine trials are progressing well and there is confidence about them at all levels of the entities involved, which I share. The criticisms tend to come from those not involved and not knowledgeable.

            But I thank you for the example of how statements are taken out of context of the authors, to suit the purpose of criticism.. That is a frequent and necessary action of the critics.

            The “dusty, conservative, sheepish virologists” are following the science and have a very strong evidentiary backing. Where & when those ideas are resisted, the virus gets the upper hand. Where and when they are followed, the impact of the virus can be moderated. It’s as simple as that.

            That message is incredibly strong and clear and consistent with the observed reality, with many examples around the world. Yet there are still some that don’t want to see or hear, and we all pay the price for that.

            The lockdowns are not really the issue, they are not needed where there is voluntary cooperation and adherence to guidelines by the public. In my state progress was rapid and things improved, such that restrictions were replaced with voluntary guidelines. But gradually that eroded and we lost all that ground, so are back to enforcement.

            Sweden has been different not because they haven’t had recurrences, but because the public has by and large cooperated voluntarily. NZ has been different because they enforced the guidelines strongly at first, but now have the support of the public in adhering to those guidelines, so are likely to remain in control without enforcement. Same with several other Pacific nations.

            In many parts of the West, there has been an oscillatory response similar to my state. Some people point to that and use it as criticism of the guidelines, but those same people are responsible for the failure.

            It’s a classic feedback loop. In NZ, the feedback is negative in terms of the directional change in transmission rate, so the system has a stable response. In much of the West, the feedback change can go positive and the response is unstable, as we are seeing now.

            Bottom line, follow the guidelines voluntarily and there is no need for enforcement. Don’t follow them and there will eventually need to be enforcement. Same as for most other kinds of rules.

            Breaking the rules, causing a problem, then pointing at the rules as the cause, is classic malcontent behavior. Only in this case the virus is the cop, it will enforce the rules of reality even if governments don’t.

            Some are ok with that as long as others will pay the price. But if we recognize our fair share in that price, and our individual role in lowering it, then cooperation is the better and ethical part of valor.

          • @Rob

            You talk of the ‘confidence’ in the vaccines ‘at all levels of the entities involved’ – this is a misrepresentation, unless you mean to say that low levels of confidence is still ‘confidence’, and unless you mean to exclude from involvement the general public who has, in your country, already voted against the vaccine, at least in the opinion polls

            (I’m sure you’ll agree the people must be one of the ‘entities’ involved)

            ‘Science’ is rarely confident about the security of any hypothesis until this is tested over and over again – even then : none of these vaccines has passed through such testing, not even the testing as traditionally applied

            There is also a consensus that vaccines against coronaviruses are of low effectiveness and duration ; coronas have been present for a long time, so this hypothesis has been long tested

            As for lockdowns these have been imposed without any attempts at consensual democracy, for the most part – there have been some band aid resolutions in panicked parliaments a posteriori, even so many states have persisted under existing, or not, emergency health regulations : the guidelines you talk about were not guidelines they were decrees and enforcement from the every outset

            Initially these were accepted by a public petrified by the dire predictions of massive death rates broadcast by hysterical virologists or usually in fact ‘modellers’, such as the notorious Ferguson in London, these now said to be either ignorant misunderstandings or in fact deliberate panick mongering – fake ‘science’ at it’s very worst

            Needless to say these martial lawlike lockdowns have failed to any great extent so far to inhibit the spread of the virus : lockdowns were promoted by health experts, promulgated by experts, even to a large extent administered by/with experts – and were, in the west, an abject failure in most countries, especially in the US

            Yet you think to say these so called experts ‘” are following the science and have a very strong evidentiary backing. Where & when those ideas are resisted, the virus gets the upper hand. Where and when they are followed, the impact of the virus can be moderated. It’s as simple as that. »

            This is the contrary of reality, unless again your word ‘moderated’ is taken in the same way as your word ‘confidence’ – that is to say very very slight moderation is still moderation

            Your arguments are as weak as the ‘science’ and the capabilities of the virologists you follow – any failure is due to the people not being obedient and respectful of their leaders and masters – you use the deliciously retro word ‘malcontent’ to describe the people, you are dressing yourself up as the Marie Antoinette of this catastrophe

          • Gerrard, the “moderation” of the virus is a fact, as found in countries that have handled COVID well. Regardless of the methods employed (lockdown or voluntary).

            The “confidence” is also a fact. Except for anti-vaxxers, none of the involved parties doubt that a successful vaccine will be developed, or that when approved, it will be safe and effective.

            How much so, we don’t yet know, but we know they have survived all the trials and there has been no desire or attempt to stop them. And we know that these efforts have the full support of the medical community, epidemiology experts, governments, and the vast majority of the public.

            Yet the anti-vaxxers know that if they can generate doubt and destroy confidence in a vaccine, they can still prevent the vaccine from being widely accepted by the public, even if successfully developed. They have worked to undermine vaccines before, with some success.

            So that is the true goal of the constant posting of criticism. Rather than waiting for the results as a reasonable person might, then making a determination based on the facts, they seek to question the fundamental basis and worth of a vaccine.

            This is really key, as an attack on the facts and what is known, is a hypothesis and therefore is also testable. But an attack on our ability to know and accept the facts, is not testable and can be sustained in the absence of evidence.

            There has been communications research on how the anti-vaxxer message became so prevalent on social media. The findings were that the posters were few in number, but they posted their message incessantly (check).

            Also they avoided fact-based discussions, instead attacking the notion of a vaccine itself as fundamentally ineffective, and a source of problems (and even disease), rather than prevention (check).

            Also any legitimate concerns or questions raised within the scientific or medical communities, were posted outside of their original context, as supporting the anti-vaxxer view (check).

            That is happening again now for the COVID vaccines, but this time the social media platforms are blocking much of that message. So much so, that the anti-vaxxers have developed coded hashtags to avoid detection and deletion.

            But as long as they are opposed by those presenting the facts with equal vigor, they can disrupt, but not deter, communication of the benefits of the vaccine, and eventual acceptance. The CDC has learned that their own positive message is important, and they have to work to get it into social & other media.

            If you want to see a highly organized form of the anti-vaxxer message, check out the video of Dr. Elke de Klerk from the Netherlands. She is not alone, other doctors from Europe are on the panel of the “World Doctors Alliance”. But the message echoes much of what has been posted here. Fortunately, it has been widely discredited and even taken down by some sites.

          • @Rob
            Very slight moderation only of the vaccine via lockdown etc has been achieved in the west, as compared for example to the east, perhaps very very slight is more accurate

            « none of the involved parties doubt that a successful vaccine will be developed, or that when approved, it will be safe and effective ».

            This statement is redundant – approval or certification of the vaccine is unlike the Max, the FDA and others are less toothless or ok guys let’s go than the FAA – that is to say by definition and by law only a vaccine considered at least 50% effective will be approved, therefore some degree of subsequent confidence is guaranteed, except…

            In your country the majority say they will not take a vaccine – call them anti vaxxers if you like, when you have a majority let alone a large majority in or not in favour you are advised to enquire as to why they are anti rather than draw up a label and leave that to do your work

            The answer is not a conspiracy theory, malevolent baddies in the NL (or China or Russia) – ‘outside interference in our country’ – the vaccine refusal is home grown and although the bug vaccine has given this majority a booster shot, it has been, in your country, growing in numbers for quite awhile : your people do not trust your gvmt

            In other countries there is a fair to high regard for the usefulness of a vaccine – this public confidence is highest in the east and drops steadily the further westwards one travels until it reaches it’s nadir and the origin of the antivaxxer, West Coast USA

            But hey at least you do not have to work with a 50% safe certification for the Max, so there is always a silver lining – I mean no one now doubts that the Max will be certified, at least in the US, …er…maybe not in China, or the markets that count, or….

            Max confidence is the reverse of vaccine c

            In your statements, as per above, you continually exclude the public from the ‘involved parties’ you mention who are all so confident, which is a curious stroke in a democratic volk – illustrative of the mindset that has abandoned them to these anti vaxxers

            You appear to believe that ‘the facts’ are known and definitive – there’s a long way to go before that can/will be said, meanwhile there are a lot of interim pieces of information – ‘science’ keeps an open mind, but those running compliance prefer to sell the closed mind

            I’m not sorry to say – your problems with this bug seem to originate from many underlying morbidities in your country : all of which are home grown – blaming nasty foreigners is not going to solve them

          • @Gerrard White
            Germany announced a rather stringent lockdown yesterday: a sudden jump from “nothing to everything”…no cogent attempt to first try some intermediate levels of restriction. I suspect that if you asked the virologists at the Robert Koch Institute what the *ultimate* purpose is of this lockdown, they wouldn’t be able to give a coherent answer. They’d mumble about increasing infection numbers, but wouldn’t say anything about the very suppressed numbers of hospitalizations/deaths relative to March/April. They’re not trying to eliminate the virus, because they know that it’s too late for that. They’re not trying to prevent saturation of healthcare facilities, because Germany was nowhere near such a trajectory. So what are they doing? What “science” is being applied here? Perhaps they think that the exercise of isolating a village in Africa for a few months to treat Ebola can just be copied & pasted to a society-wide, protracted outbreak like the present one? There’s no strategy here…just a muddle of knee-jerk tactics. There’s certainly no “science”.

          • @Bryce

            Thanks for this report – I know little enough about Germany except that it seems to gotten off lightly in the first wave and is now afraid it will suffer higher infection and more deaths in the second

            Perhaps Germany is responding to a degree of political pressure to follow a common big country EU lockdown policy ?

            In all, in pretty much every gvmt response we can observe very little careful consideration of any science – the concern of politicians is politics – this idea that the ‘science’ must be followed is not only a logical impossibility, a non sequitur, but an excuse to avoid thinking about politics, administration, and society – one can no more follow science than one may follow one’s nose

            ‘Science’ is only invoked to shut people out from dissent or debate

            Although I do think that very few people, politicians ‘experts’ virologists or otherwise are thinking out loud about long term strategy and what is to be considered the outcome, good outcome inevitable outcome, for the while short termism is a paramount necessity, ‘a week is a long time in politics’ and so on – they are all desperate for a vaccine, any vaccine

            This état d’urgence is very convenient, I remember the pleasure on the face of François Hollande every time he announced one

            Do you know the philosopher Giorgio Agamben who has described very carefully the why and how of the state of exception ?


            It is still very non PC to say the bug is endemic ; yet a few people have begun to do so, as you have quoted/linked : dipping their toes in the ice cold stare of the politicos – next step will be these same such will be emboldened to outline the history of how the coronavirus have in the past evolved into common colds, and what such an endemic might be/feel/look like over the next generation or two

          • The latest poll (as of 3 days ago) shows 60% in the US would volunteer to take the vaccine as soon as available. Of the remaining 40%, over half said they would take the vaccine if trial results show there are not serious side-effects.

            Also the polling showed the drop from the 70% figure in August was due to politicizing of the vaccine, with Trump/Pence saying it would be available before the election and Biden/Harris saying the vaccine could not be trusted if forced by the administration.

            As it happens, the results of the trials will be made public so people will be able to judge for themselves. Also it’s not possible to vaccinate everyone immediately, so most people will have time to evaluate.

            The important thing, as I said, is to not allow the undermining of the vaccine before the results are available. Anyone attempting to do that is compromised by definition. If people choose to question those facts after release, so be it, the questions can be factually & scientifically answered.

      • So far it seems the FDA is more rigorous than the FAA was during the 737MAX events. Might be easier avoiding pressure having a number of US medical drug makers and a big batch abroad that all need to follow FDA regulations to sell in the US.

        • @ Claes Eriksson

          The problem is that a lot of companies are developing a lot of vaccines by using many different ‘technologies’

          So that the vaccines are guaranteed to be of variable efficacy

          No comparison testing is yet taking place, nor is likely to – the rush to immediate use and political even nationalistic (won’t touch a Russian/China/NZ vaccine etc) pressure are paramount

          Given that a lot of the research and development for this vaccine is being paid for by the public purse it would make sense to demand collaboration between the pharmas, comparison testing and common development of logistic delivery systems, and opensource patent attribution

          It appears that no government is insisting on such collaboration – the end result is likely to be that winner takes all even if it is not particularly effective, even if many better vaccines are developed in less of a rush

          But you are right that there is a bigger export market than import in the US, as most polls indicate an US majority will not take the vaccine

          • @Gerrard White
            China has already indicated that its “vaccine” will first be given to developing countries, with developed countries bottom of the list. A very clever move, of course: use the drug to hook some vulnerable nations into (further) dependency on China, and concurrently exploit their shoddy regulations to mask any mishaps. They may even use the population in developing nations as guinea pigs, before using the vaccine at home.
            When you think about it: even if just the population in nursing homes (6.75% of the population in NL) were to be given some form of (pseudo-)”vaccine”, it would essentially solve the problem of saturation of healthcare facilities (in countries outside the USA), thus removing the need for any further lockdowns. Of course, immunosenescence plays a role, but doubtless some form of adjuvant can be added to the “vaccine” to perk up its performance. However, since a huge percentage of nursing home occupants are suffering from dementia, the question arises as to whose permission is required to vaccinate them…

          • @Bryce

            China is clever at exploiting the opportunities revealed by this bug, or more especially by the inept reactions in the west

            That China’s leadership and administrations are coordinated and focused on specific outcomes is un mistakable

            I would not underestimate China medical technology – as with further refining their t&t techniques and technology, as with remote schooling, as with surveillance in general, the bug has provided the perfect opportunity to up vaccine development, and just as China made a big splash, in Africa at least, with their gifts of masks and so one at the beginning of this outbreak, they will make sure that they will be the prime distributors of free vaccines

            This works – China was very quick in March to make a big noise that an integral part of the Belt and Road infrastructure was medical/healthcare infra, this was first time I ever heard this was intended to be the case – but I am certain that in Africa this was warmly welcomed, by local ruling élites at least

            Recent reports have made clear proper vaccine development takes a very long time precisely in order to avoid the ‘guinea pig’ scenario : I think no country nor pharma will manage to be patient enough to follow well established protocols, which I understand to take approximately four years

            An anecdote – at the beginning the bug was called ‘le truc des chinois’, now it is called ‘le truc des blancs’

          • @Gerrard White
            “I think no country nor pharma will manage to be patient enough to follow well established protocols, which I understand to take approximately four years”

            Actually, the 4 years was a one-off for the mumps vaccine, which was the fastest vaccine development ever. A normal vaccine development time is 10-15 years (not months). This link (for example) has a diagram showing the normal course of vaccine development.

            By definition, the current vaccine development time has been too short to properly test any candidate vaccine on pregnant, pre-natal and breastfeeding women…which obviously requires at least 9 months, and more usually (well) in excess of 18 months.

            Of course, there are those who believe that “science” has suddenly morphed in the past few years into some sort of magic [maybe it has something to do with 5G? ;-)], whereby we can now nail a reliable vaccine in 10 months instead of 10 years. Sure! Pocket fusion reactors will also be available next year…did you know that? 😉 Apple already has them on pre-order.

          • @Bryce

            You are right : I have read that about the Mumps vaccine and about the usual time for development which you quote– as referenced in recent articles about testing for the effects on the aged and so on

            As I think you have stated a lot of people, not only politicians, are brandishing the word ‘science’ as if a big stick to beat the masses into submission and to refrain from thinking out loud

            These are the acolytes of the new religion

            This has given some licence to come up with foolish ideas – Ferguson from Imperial College, Fauci at the start, then a whole lot of others lower down the ladder who seek to ensure compliance

          • @Rob

            Let’s follow the opinion polls as we approach V Day, that will make for interesting tv

            Meanwhile I think we can all participate in discussions about this crisis without undermining the foundations of the state or nation or democracy, nor indeed the vaccine, even if it were possible to undermine a vaccine : telling people to shut up does not work

            You seem to think that public involvement with this crisis, in any aspect of, is a form of lèse-majesté, the people are there only to do what they are told, and pay

            To influence and guideline public policy in the research and development would not be a stretch for a democracy, either – for example in the attribution of patents, in the assignment of public funds for r&d, in some kind of demand for opensource collaboration and comparison of the vaccines prior to certification, in the logistics and prioritisation of order of delivery

            Better than we do so in order to let the various authorities administrations and gvmts what the masses think and want – I understand this to be a pillar of the political system democracy, which may not be suspended without peril

            Better that than let the pharmas rush out a ‘product‘ in record time which then proves Purdue like

          • @ Gerrard White
            A horrible example of what can go wrong with a rushed vaccine: the incidences of Narcolepsy associated with GSK’s Pandemrix vaccine (against H1N1). This article covers the UK, but there were even worse incidences in Sweden and Finland.

            I got HTP and HepA/B vaccines a few years ago without any hesitation…but those were quality vaccines that had been developed in the normal manner.
            I certainly will not be in a rush to get any new CoViD vaccine, thank you. Perhaps Rob would like to volunteer for that, in view of his infinite faith in the whole process? After all, it’s all founded on “fact” and “science”, so what could possible go wrong?

          • These comments are all examples of undermining the vaccine before it is available, exactly as I described. Neither of you know that the processes being followed are not fulsome or complete. To make that claim legitimately, you would need to wait for the results, then present analysis & evidence.

            All the entities involved have said that the trials are being conducted in accordance with best practices. The results will be made public, nothing will be concealed or hidden.

            The acceleration was in the development phase, but not in the testing phase. The only difference in the trials was the number of people enrolled, far greater than normal to shorten the time required. But no shortcuts in the number of steps or rigor.

            You conflate the issue of undermining with public discussion. There is nothing whatever wrong with discussion, the problem occurs when the purpose of the discussion is to undermine the vaccine.

            As far as how public perception pans out, that will be determined by whether the factual results win out, or the anti-vaxxer propaganda.

          • @Bryce

            Thanks for the link –

            With some people what is important above all is to reinforce faith in the system as it currently exists, as defending the indefensible Boeing

            They live by Faith, not objective analysis : say that only those inside the system have access to the ‘true’ facts – outsiders who are critical are ‘anti American’ or anti the values which made our country great, in times of failure the same old isolationism

            Such acolytes are at war with everything, the bug and the rest of the world – are those who would seek reparations from China

            The people must stand and wait, accept what they are given and keep their mouth shut

          • @Rob

            Your blind faith in the self serving PR of large companies would be pitiful if it is not that these rely on such acquiescence and gullibility to foist their products

            Your attitude leads to the cosy collaboration between Boeing and the FAA – would encourage similar corruption at the FDA

            Now it is the intent of open discussion which must be measured by authorities before allowing it ?

            Censorship is always censorship even it dare not speak it’s name

            Why are you so frightened ?

          • Gerrard, I’m not afraid of the vaccine, that is the whole point. You wish people to have fear and are sowing doubts for that purpose.

            If you have evidence that the vaccine development process is compromised or corrupt, please give it. If you are only speculating, then please be aware that’s an example of attempting to damage public understanding and reception of the virus before the results are available.

            Once the results are released, they will be evaluated and people will be able to decide for themselves. You can decide to not take it if you wish. You have that right, but so equally do people have the right to take it, and base that decision on the truth alone.

            People who are not protected by the vaccine will eventually get infected, and will attain a similar level of immunity, if they survive. In the period they are infectious, they will pose a substantial hazard to others.

            People who gain immunity through the vaccine, do so without posing a risk or hazard to others. That is the key difference, Two paths to immunity, one responsible to the well-being of yourself & others, and one not.

          • @Rob

            You are frightened of something, otherwise why the reds under the beds language about people ‘undermining’ the american way of life chatter

            If not the vaccine, what?

            Frightened of – Non existent trust in your pharmas? I do not think the Americans trust their pharmas, viz Purdue, and for good reason

            Frightened of your people’s fear of vaccines? – It’s not this vaccine that you American distrust, it’all vaccines, along with your gvmt pols experts and…

            The facts about potential vaccines for coronas are well established, and the facts about the mean time for vaccine development ditto

            In the case of development of this vaccine; both are swept aside by the cheerleaders

            And no one has the right to debate – a history of failure of corona vaccine development, massive gvmt R&D subsidies, locked in profits guaranteed with patent protection, plus censorship to avoid any debate or disruption – and all’s well?

            Well, the facts are in, at least some of them – and the people of your country has already voted against the vaccine, in such numbers as largely to inhibit/ prohibit overall efficacity

            This is the root problem – the American status quo you so faithfully defend is crumbling : your failures exposed by the multiple deficiencies and errors dealing with this crisis as with other recent- there’s a fact

            Yet – The laughing stock of the rest of the world is still waiting for the facts….

          • @Gerrard White
            Among many possible explanations, here’s another one: half his pension plan is invested in Boeing stock, and the other half is in pharma stocks. That would fit well with much of the exhibited behavior 😉

        • Gerrard, I made no mention of reds under the beds or threat to American way of life. Those are your words, but perhaps also subliminal indicators of your thinking?

          The issue is undermining the factual basis for vaccines, which both you and Bryce have engaged in here. But the facts are important so will continue to be put forward. Not just by me but by health agencies and institutions such as CDC, Johns Hopkins, WHO, NIH, etc.

          Ultimately the facts don’t support the anti-vaxxers, which is why they try to shout down the truth. They don’t have mainstream media access, because their positions have no validity, so they turn to social media instead. Neither you nor Bryce could take your views to a reputable news organization and get any traction. So you post them here.

          But increasingly social media platforms are being shut down to them as well, being flagged as false and misleading, or deleted. Even for government officials who should know better.

          Ultimately the truth will win out, as the vaccine trial data are released and analyzed. Health agencies are learning to get their message out more effectively, lots of research on that as well.

          • @Rob
            You use the scared language [Edited] when frightened [Edited]

            We have, Bryce and I, since you so kindly associate us, posted links to very reputable experts websites and organisations that have been realistic about corona vaccine development, especially this one, and of the prospects for any kind of efficacity

            These reports are realistic while not optimistic nor ‘anti vaxxer’

            The facts are not in, are not definite nor definitive, the FA has not approved any vaccine for mass distribution, one can say – in real life – that the proof is in the pudding – once large scale evidence of the level of efficacity of one or more vaccines has been proved in the population at large – then and only then can you, I mean you not ‘one’, start talking about facts

            Meanwhile your facts are what ? All’s well , at least so far at this early stage, at least so far according to the pharmas : and that’s it – those are not facts, or at least not useful to apply, nor to measure the efficiency and effect of any vaccine to the containing this virus

            Besides – the efficacity of this virus depends on a significant uptake in the population at large – it is a fact that you in America say that you do want to take this virus, you say this in large enough a percentage to render impossible the required degree of effective uptake – although of course some local sub sets may be treated

            This is a fact you do not address

            This is the fact with America, nothing has worked so far with any degree of efficiency or success, whereas the countries/people of most of the rest of world have had larger degrees of success


  3. The airlines response to this is the interesting one. Are we going to see capacity constrained over the medium term as a result of many airlines taking a cautious view to demand. How quickly can supply be ramped up to meet that demand. and critically what need will there be for new aircraft given the glut of parked aircraft.

    My guess is that if there is an option to defer or cancel then many airlines, acting in emergency cash preservation mode, will do so. This presumably affects the MAX more than most orders because of the grounding and the legal right for airlines to reject aircraft out of hand.

    • I suspect that many airlines with MAX orders may have been hanging on because they had an overly-optimistic view of the vaccine landscape: perhaps they confused emergency use authorization (maybe end of this year?) with a full rollout (maybe middle of 2021?) and with broad application (no sooner than well into 2022). As time progresses with no sign of substantial demand recovery being offered by a vaccine, it becomes very tempting to jettison anything that can easily be thrown overboard…and, in the case of the MAX, that can be done without penalty. Better to continue with a fleet that is too lean rather than too fat: if needed in the future, lessors and receivers will probably have plenty of spare airframes that can be snapped up.

    • That legal right exists for orders meant to be delivered between March 2019 (grounding date) and November 2019 (now 12 months late). Most of those orders have already been addressed by the airlines, either in the form of compensation, deferral, or cancellation.

      For example, Icelandic Airlines has announced they have taken their compensation in the form of financing reduction on their MAX orders.

      Other cancellations can occur with penalty, as with any other order, and obviously we’ve seen a lot of those as well. There will continue to be a combination of order changes, deferrals, and cancellations until the market recovers.

      • Oct 22: WN says it is currently in discussions with Boeing (NYSE:BA) to restructure its order book

        • Hopefully Ryanair also are, behind the scenes.
          Absolutely no reason for them to stick with the MAX when there’s a far more versatile aircraft family available from Airbus. Commonality is a minor concern: they already acquired Lauda, and were initially planning on keeping and expanding its Airbus fleet before CoViD came along. Pilot re-training is a relatively minor concern: it will have to happen one day anyway, is BCA every comes with a new NB aircraft (before it goes bankrupt).

    • How quickly can supply be ramped up to meet that demand.

      I guess as quick as calling up some maintenance guys to do some checks on a cold aircraft that has been sitting somewhere, collecting dust. There are large numbers of aircraft that are still parked across pretty much all the airlines of the world.

  4. I’m already invested in Airbus and Spirit Aerosystems.

    Boeing has its sets of issues and IMHO for me the stock is still too high (i.e.-overvalued).

    Regardless, when we see the aerospace stocks move up (in anticipation of improved revenues and earnings) then we’ll know we’ll be seeing a sustained recovery.


  5. Trouble is the yoke. One day, probably too late, Boeing will start to use the side stick.

  6. Comments are closed.

    Too many of you continue to get personal, in violation of reader comment rules.